From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Four Philadelphia-area congressmen sent a letter Monday to the acting chief of the Social Security Administration asking that the agency address the sometimes years-long delays for Philadelphia-area residents seeking disability-benefits hearings.
The letter to acting Commissioner Nancy Berryhill, signed by U.S. Reps. Brendan Boyle, Dwight Evans, Robert Brady, and Donald Norcross, all Democrats, came in response to an article in Sunday’s Inquirer that reported that applicants in the city are waiting an average of 26 months for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) appeal hearings. That’s the longest average waiting time for any city in the country. Applicants in adjacent counties in South Jersey and Pennsylvania also are experiencing average wait times of 20 months or longer.
“While we are certainly sympathetic to the budgetary constraints of your agency, we are deeply concerned by the number of individuals subject to undue stress and health risks brought on by reports of bureaucratic inefficiency,” the letter said. ...
One wonders why Congressmen are never talking about reforms that would lead to State DDS's finding more people who are disabled well... disabled. Before they get into the hearing backlog. (Yes, I know the answer why.)
ReplyDeleteThe denial rate at Hearing seems to say that DDS is right quite often. Chronic health condition does not always mean unable to work.
ReplyDeleteI am curious about what percentage of those denied by ALJs simply reapply. I was also denied by AC. Just because the ALJ claimed I could do 3 jobs doesn't mean I can. My only choice is to reapply while also appealing to Federal Court. Maybe I am just cynical, but I think they are stringing it out while pressuring the ALJs to deny so they can cheat as many claimants as much as they can! Longer delays are "helpful" in cutting disability payouts.
ReplyDeleteLove too hear the folks who are members of the body that could actually do something about our budget and thus performance cry about our poor performance (due to an all too meager budget the last decade or so).
ReplyDelete"We know that funding, adjusting for inflation, is down like double-digit percentages over the past few years and that your admin had more than 80k employees about 20 years ago [we have barely 60k now], but what's your deal? Move faster, please."
Get outta here with that. Unless you start skewering the lawmakers not supporting an increase to our budget each and every time you get to speak on the issue, I don't care to hear you complain about our performance ktxbai
I would not suggest a capricious change. However, 45% of initial denials being allowed by ALJs indicates that there is still much room for improvement at the DDS level as well.
ReplyDeleteI know enough people file after being denied through Hearing or AC that they have a name, they are called frequent filers. Generally, unless there is a change in the medical records we do not look to take on a claim after an AC denial. If there is a change in onset date, still inside the insured period that represents a period of disability that is supported by significant medical records we might entertain it. Usually we refer to VR.
ReplyDelete9:23, ALJ hearings more often result in awards than denials. DDS might be right sometimes, but there sure is room for more accuracy, especially on topics like evaluating mental impairments, non-exertional limitations, and combinations of impairments.
ReplyDeleteIf it's not due to lack of caring, SSA should implement a policy that sets a deadline for an appeal level or DDS decision to be issued. Anything past that deadline would result in temporary benefits being issue.
ReplyDeleteMaking people wait 3 years without any source of income is cruel.
Too many ALJ's don't do their jobs well. I find it odd that no one really talks about that.
ReplyDeleteWhat has brought this system to the breaking point has been the hatred and hostility of the controlling party in congress since 2012 along with the witch hunting propaganda techniques of that party and their billionaire backers and their think tanks. I say this having seen it in use for several years against a state worker's compensation system that was finally destroyed in my state. The key is to target and demonize the recipients of the system and to employ the big smear that fraud is everywhere by way of the media. A sense of fake urgency and hostility are created with the public to justify "reforming" the system. These assertions are never backed by academic studies or hard statistics but are within the province of the big lie and yellow journalism. Speaker Ryan tipped his hand that big cuts are desired after the billionaire tax cuts. I believe the repubs have backed off due to the upcoming midterms only. If the status quo is maintained they will dismantle social security, medicare and the food assistance program either after the midterms or a second Trump term. They hate the worker, the poor, the widow, and the orphan that can't write them fat campaign checks or feather their nests when they leave Washington DC.
ReplyDelete11:14. AM. The problem is that some disabling conditions are easier to "prove" than others. The ALJs seem to require "beyond a reasonable doubt" today, while ten years ago giving the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, some murders get convictions quickly, others take more time, sometimes the " murderer" is found "not guilty." Sometimes there is so much evidence that all points to the murderer. Other times, there is conflicting evidence that can be used to muddle the waters. Sometimes the evidence is simply sparse. Then there are cases where the evidence seems clear, but the jury decides it is not enough to "prove" guilt (OJ). If ALJs are going to be adversarial, then they must be made to bring up everything in the record that troubles them about the records, give all reasons for and against approval and take more time for the hearing in order to make a " better" decision. Not simply be a able to "justify" there decision. Otherwise, have a real trial, with multiple witnesses and a jury. Anything less is not fair.
ReplyDeleteNo - what needs to change in part, is to stop making SSA give "critical" move to the front of the line status to Bets who are already getting many thousands of VA dollars and free medical care, leaving the homeless SSI claimant waiting. And the recent retirees who are getting a pension and SS retirements and just want a "bump up" in the SS pay. Nobody mentions them.
ReplyDelete7:29, according to https://oig.ssa.gov/sites/default/files/audit/full/pdf/A-05-16-50207.pdf (look at table 2 and the text below it) there are about 5000 wounded warrior/100% P&T veterans with critical case flags in the backlog.
ReplyDeleteEliminating critical case flags for them would do nothing measurable for the over 1 million waiting for a hearing and would be a PR nightmare for SSA.
If they took 10 staff attorneys and had them do 2 on the record decisions a day (focus on the super quantitative/obvious cases: claimants on dialysis, stage 4 cancer, listing-level cardiac or respiratory test results, IQ under 50, and age 60+ at time of application, etc.--some of them would need to amended onsets to be fully favorable but many claimants would agree to that) they'd get through the same number of cases a year as the veterans and with no public outcry.